Electrum doesn't use the password to generate keys... it only uses the seed mnemonic. The wallet file password is only used to encrypt the data stored in the wallet file. You can setup a wallet without a password using that same seed and it will generate the same addresses/keys.

In any case, it seems you have missed the point of the OP. They were looking for a reliable method to be able to use an unencrypted Electrum wallet to determine the password of an encrypted version of that same Electrum wallet file. They were not simply asking you to "guess" or bruteforce the password for the wallet that they linked.

And it would appear that odolvlobo has taken pity on you and removed their feedback.

The more correct answer is: "It depends on your location and the rules that your specific country (and/or state) has"

You will need to check with the government tax office for your location to see what rules apply and whether or not you have to pay taxes on gains from cryptocurrency transactions.

Ummmm why are you manually selecting individual "coins"?

Just goto the "Addresses" tab, find the address you want to spend from... right click and select... wait for it... "spend from"




This will autopopulate the "send" tab will all the available inputs for the selected address:



NOTE: the CTRL-click "trick" also works on the addresses tab

Just be aware that, as bob123, mentioned... by restoring like this, you are losing the protection of 2FA. Additionally, you're operating with a "multi-sig" wallet that can cause issues if you need to extract private keys for specific addresses whatever reason. You'd be well advised to create a completely new "standard" wallet... and move your funds to the new wallet to prevent any issues moving forward.

Sorry, I'm a little confused by your use of the term "multiplier"... do you mean payout?

So, 10x payout which would equal around ~9.9% chance (on a typical house edge of 1%)... and then slowly increase that payout (11x, 12x, 13x etc), which effectively reduces the chance, while increasing the bet?

And yet... we have people who claim that storing funds in custodial wallets is "better" than using a hardware wallet...

This is just another textbox book example of why storing funds "long term" in any sort of custodial wallet is simply a "Bad Idea"™. Your funds are basically at the mercy of the service provider who can (and historically have) made all sorts of arbitrary decisions that affect end user access to their funds

It's pretty messed up that they can say "we're delisting <coin>" and at the same time disable withdrawals for said coin... SMH

You guys are missing the point... you can't see the Bitcoin Core "seed". At most, all you can see is the "xprv", but as this is derived from hashing the seed... you can't go xprv -> seed.

If it was abdussamad, then it was likely Electrum... which isn't BIP39 by default anyway

If it doesn't adhere to the BIP39 spec, then it isn't truly BIP39 compatible... And I think you may be confusing Entropy and Seed... you start with 128-256 bits of entropy... then convert that to a mnemonic sentence and then from the mnemonic sentence you convert to the binary seed.

I know Ian Coleman's converter will generate 3, 6 and 9 word seed mnemonics... but it does warn you that they are low entropy. Again, because it is outside the 128-256 bit spec.

Have a re-read of: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki

Actually it is... because it applies to all wallets. Sure, it's easy to say "Don't trust crappy sources of entropy"... but then, how is your average user meant to know what is and what isn't a crappy source of entropy?


I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with that scenario? My take away from that is that only experienced users (doctors) should be using paper wallets (performing heart surgery) due to the risks involved.

So, I think you've missed what PrimeNumber7 seemed to be getting at... The fact that a given procedure is complex is a "risk" and needs to be mitigated. You mitigate the risks in heart surgery by having experience surgeons perform the procedure. In the case of paper wallets, advising the average joe on the street that paper wallets are "fine" for the average joe on the street is ignoring all of the "risks" inherent with using them... "crappy entropy", issues with change, issues with spending, lack of understanding of what air-gapped really means etc.

One only needs to view the Bitcoin Tech Support, "Wallet" support and B&H subforums here to see all the weird and wonderful ways that "the average joe on the street" finds to dig themselves into a hole when using Bitcoin (and cryptocurrency in general).

It's great that you feel confident enough to safely create and use paper wallets... I would be confident in saying that a vast majority of people on these forums are not.


So you hand coded all the software necessary in the generation of your private keys? or did you check every single line of code of the software? or did you "blindly trust" the software developer(s) who developed the code you no doubt used to convert your "non-crappy" entropy into private keys?

Pretty much all bitcoin users, myself included, are blindly trusting something at some point... I doubt there are many that have the time nor inclincation to attempt a couple of manual SHA-256 rounds to convert entropy to a private key... (Not sure there are that many who would be keen on attempting a manual RIPEMD-160 either. )

Simply because one set of users is trusting a hardware wallet manufacturer and another set are trusting a software developer doesn't make one group more or less their own bank.

Are there shortcomings in Hardware wallets? Yes
Are there shortcomings in Paper wallets? Yes
Are there shortcomings in <insert any type of wallet>? Yes

There isn't a "perfect" wallet that covers all use-cases. Find what suits your use-case and figure out how to use it "properly".

That isn't what they said.

What they actually said (according to your email screenshot) was:

They're telling you that for security reasons, they would need to change the wallets for all users of the site... and they had no plan to do that for at least 3 months. They never said they would do it in a "max" of 3 months... in fact, they didn't specify any maximum limit on when it might happen, just that it definitely wouldn't happen for at least 3 months.


Having said that... theoretically, they should be able to recover the LTC, if they can extract the key for the BTC address. The methods to recover LTC sent to a BTC address are fairly well known and publicised (for example: https://imgur.com/gallery/M5Lah#oZmCOxm). Unfortunately, the issue for services like this is that to extract a single private key creates significant security risks compared with a single user doing it on a privately held wallet. Additionally, the time and effort required would, in most cases, outweigh the value of the "lost" coins.

This is why some of the exchanges have a minimum value of $5000 before they'll consider recover.

At the end of the day, you made a mistake... as unfortunate as that is, Stake.com are not responsible for this issue and are under no real obligation to recover the coins for you. They're certainly not scamming you. Perhaps write to their support and ask that should they update all the wallets in the future, could they consider recovering your LTC?

You're ignoring one of the main tenants of Bitcoin... No control of private keys = No control of coins. Placing all your holdings in custodial wallets is simply a "Bad Idea"™

It's "Be Your Own Bank"... not "Let some online company be your new bank"


Ummm no. You simply restore your 24 word seed mnemonic into any BIP39 compatible wallet (software or hardware) and you should have access to your funds. You don't need to contact customer support for anything.


Yes, your "doomsday" scenario is highly unlikely... If you want to play that game, then one could argue that it's just as likely that an Earthquake or Tornado could wipe out the datacentre of an exchange... poof all coins gone

It's possible that you could leverage the "Wallet" API: https://www.blockchain.com/api/blockchain_wallet_api

And simply call the "New Address" method multiple times to force it out past the gap limit. However, I'm not sure if this will result in the addresses showing up in the web UI (I assume you're logging into the web frontend to view your wallet).

I think the best solution is exporting the seed mnemonic (24 words) and then importing them into Electrum (You need to use the "BIP39 seed" option when creating the wallet) and adjusting the gap limit there as advised above.

You might also need to adjust the derivation path used as, from memory, blockchain.info/.com wallets use a slightly different derivation path.

You need to realise that a lot of them are generally estimating for "next block confirmation"... not "within 6 blocks" which is the "less than one hour" metric.

Also, given the volatility of the network lately... "within one hour" can easily become "within one day" if you send a transaction just as a massive spike kicks off. Ask me how I know!

Johoe's stats and btc.com are my goto pages to get an idea of what the Network is doing... then I usually just ignore it and send with 1 sat/byte anyway!

As far as I'm aware... you can't actually see the "wallet seed" in Bitcoin Core. Or at least, not easily. It isn't ever displayed... even when doing a "dumpwallet". All that does is give a Master Private Key (xprv). So you'd need to go digging about in the wallet.dat and/or modify the code to be able to access it.

The Bitcoin Core philosophy has always been that you simply need to create backups of your wallet.dat.

Given that BIP mnemonics are just a way to encode a number, then as long as you can convert the xprv into a number that satisfies the requirements of BIP39, then you could convert it to a mnemonic phrase following the BIP39 algorithm...

So, as long as it converts to a 128, 160, 192, 224 or 256bit number, then it should be fairly easy to then convert into a mnemonic.


However, you should note that any "number" you convert the xprv to will likely NOT be the same as the original seed... as seed -> xprv involves hashing. So you wouldn't be able to use your mnemonic in a BIP39 compatible wallet and restore a copy of your Bitcoin Core wallet.

Just FYI, you generally don't store paper in a "cryptosteel" type seed mnemonic storage device.

The idea is that you either engrave or "punch" the seed mnemonic directly into the metal... or you use laser engraved letter "tiles" to piece the words together.

That generally seems to be how people end up finding these "fake" domains... personally, I don't ever see them. But I put that down to the adblockers that I use.

There is reason why people say, don't just rely on whatever is the top result on Google. A lot of time it'll be a keyword ad... and they don't really moderate what shows up until the sites are reported via their "safe browsing" reporting system.

I can't get any ads to show up for Electrum, so I'm guessing Google might have finally just blocked that as a keyword after receiving so many reports (or maybe the Electrum devs simply purchased the keyword themselves).

You would simply initialise the Nano S using the 24 word seed mnemonic that you got when you setup the Nano X. Basically, during setup of the Nano S, you would click the "X" button when it asks if you want to "configure as a new device":


It will then ask you to enter your 24 words. Once this is complete, the Nano S will essentially be a "clone" of the Nano X and allow you to access the same wallets/addresses/assets etc.

It's just handy to have... it isn't necessary per se. As you've already stated, with the recover phrase you can restore into another BIP39 wallet or buy a replacement wallet. However, you might like to have ready access to a spare device in case you need to access in a hurry and the X is damaged/stolen/lost etc... being able to restore immediately to an S is a lot safer than restoring to a software wallet and is a lot more convenient  than waiting for delivery of another wallet.

I see you have raised a flag and it is currently inactive: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=883622;page=iflags

Unfortunately, you have not provided any real proof of your allegation. If you have any demonstrable proof (chat logs, screenshots, emails) that will support your claim, you should post it here so we can consider it and then support your flag.

Unfortunately, given the current lack of evidence... I cannot support this flag at the present time.

The flag should hopefully be active now... there are 3+ DT members supporting it.


Also, don't been too impatient... some of us actually have lives outside of BCT and don't just sit on the "Scam Accusations" board hitting F5

There is "being cautious" and then there is "being paranoid". This should solve all your problems: https://mcphee.com/products/tin-foil-hat

Seriously, you keep banging on about USB and USB-C devices... you've already been told, simply get "power only" cables or those data blocker adaptors that were listed above. Problem completely solved. You could even buy a powerbank from "Hackers R Us" and use it with those and you'd have no need to worry.

You keep playing the "what if?" game and never seem to want to make an actual decision. If you keep doing that, you'll eventually get to the level of: "Well, what if someone drops a dirty bomb on the bank where my cryptosteel is stored in a safety deposit?"

Refer: Analysis Paralysis

Possible causes:
1. Gap limit. Electrum has a default gap limit of 25. If the other addresses are past this generation limit, Electrum won't see them until you force it to.
2. You have a mixture of address types (Legacy + Nested SegWit + Native SegWit etc) in your Ledger Live setup. An Electrum wallet instance only supports one type. So you would need to create a Legacy wallet and then a separate Nested SegWit wallet (and a separate Native SegWit wallet if reqd).


Curious as to why you imported the seed mnemonic directly instead of simply "pairing" Electrum with your Ledger device using the builtin hardware wallet functionality within Electrum?